If Trump or Trump Inc has had substantial business dealings with Russian oligarchs (or other foreign parties), even if 100% in compliance with US tax codes as interpreted by the IRS, don’t you think the American people should know that? It may not be illegal but the President should not be sucking at Russian teat.
The Muller report reaffirmed what all of America’s counter intelligence agencies have been saying, and that is the Russians actively interfered in the US elections process. Why the Republicans suddenly think that it’s ok to let this slide (looking at you Mitch McConnel) is beyond my understanding, even in the current politicized society we are in.
It’s rather silly of you to say that when I’ve provided cites to show that I’m right. They on at least two occasions, that I’ve cited, limited Congress’s right to investigate, once to only investigate where there’s legitimate legislative interest, and once to not act as a law enforcement agency.
Unless your point is that Congress may still have the ability to investigate these things, but not the right. In which case, I’d say that that’s exactly what Trump has been doing, and not something to be emulated.
Apart from that, I’m surprised how many people here want Congress to usurp the role of law enforcement, given how often those people (including you) have noted the dangers of directly elected law enforcement - see Joe Arpaio, for one. Surely it can’t be that it’s fine if your side does it?
But Congress isn’t usurping a law enforcement function. As Woodrow Wilson famously wrote, “The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.”
You’re off on some weird tilting at windmills take on this issue. Waaaaay off in left field. I barely understand any basis for your concern.
Under the holdings you’re referencing, congress is merely obligated to state a legit legislative interest. (“The proper functioning of the IRS”, “Proper IRS oversight of the President”, “tax laws in the U.S.”. Or, how about, “corruption in the Executive Branch”, which has been specifically affirmed as a proper congressional function? Easy and done). And they have to refer anybody they hold in contempt to the justice department for prosecution (Now, that creates a problem when somebody like the AG is the one in contempt - he won’t be prosecuted. And, yes, that’s where impeachment (the only law enforcement power of the congress) comes in).
But this is doesn’t impact whether they can request tax returns pursuant to a law giving them that power, especially when the law is derived directly from their power of oversight over the Executive branch. This is PLAINLY constitutional.
How is congress playing a law enforcement role? They would have to refer any prosecution for tax fraud to prosecutors for battle in the courts; this is an investigation/oversight role that congress is fulfilling.
It will be interesting to see if the conservative constitutional constructionists on the Supreme Court will adjudicate on the words of the laws or by some political affiliation to Trump.